Quote:
Originally Posted by bstew
Last year, a strategy called the noodle agreement was thought of in which both alliances agreed to dump their litter on the field to boost both alliances score and qualification ranking. This year a similar agreement, with BOULDERS could be made with similar results.
The agreement would consist of both alliances agreeing to introduce their BOULDERS either into their courtyard or an opposing alliance’s robot. If both alliances agree to do this, weakening and subsequently making CAPTURE of the TOWER fairly easy. Because both alliances would introduce the same number of BOULDERS, this would theoretically not affect who would win the match.
In a previous post about a similar defense agreement, rule T7 and T8 have been cited as not allowing this type of strategy. However, this agreement is an agreement that will result in all teams playing above, rather than below, their ability.
Is this a viable strategy? |
Both the defense agreement you mention and this boulder agreement are both valid strategies, and they don't violate any rules, because you aren't encouraging the other team to do badly, but encouraging them to help you. Assuming that you believe that this agreement will help your team, it doesn't make you perform under your potential. The point of these rules is to prevent teams that don't want to be captains to drop in ranking, causing alliance partners to suffer as well. These strategies, both the boulder alliance and the defense agreement, are only intended to benefit both alliances, thus not playing below potential. In that sense, both strategies are identical. My issue with this is that if your alliance was losing, you would simply slow the flow of boulders back into the field. You don't want to lose two easy ranking points, so a win is still important. The defense agreement is viable because it happens before the game, so can't be changed mid-game.